I received my copy of Transgender Tapestry #110 the other day, and so turned immediately to the Book Review section, as I’d been asked to write a review of Richard/Alice Novic’s Alice in Genderland
I had also been told, by Richard Novic and by then-editor Dallas Denny, that Richard Novic didn’t like my review, and had requested TT run a more favorable review instead. Ms. Denny opted to run both reviews, side by side, and told me as much. I was okay with her decision, even though I found Novic’s request somewhat odd, as I wrote what was at worst a mixed review, but by no means a bad one. (I even used the phrase, “highly recommended†which is generally not found in a bad review.)
That was as much as I knew until I received my copy in the mail the other day. It was quite a surprise to see, in addition to my review and the requested 2nd review, a note by Richard Novic effectively rebutting my own review and plainly stating “I was hoping that as a reviewer, she might rise above the way my book affected her personally. . .†In addition, she mentioned how “surprised†she was that TT had chosen me to review her “life story.â€
For the record, then, a few corrections.
(1) Richard Novic specifically requested, by email, that I review Alice in Genderland for TT. Suffice it to say the new editor of TT, Denise LeClair, and the old editor of TT, Dallas Denny, both have a copy of said email.
(2) The review I did submit had been re-written several times after I let Richard Novic read it and before I sent it to TT. She was not happy with my original draft(s), so I softened a good deal of my criticism of it.
(3) I sent Richard Novic my review of her book beforehand only as a personal favor, and in fact re-wrote the piece some only because we had become somewhat friendly over time. He had written to me on previous occasions, having read my book, to ask advice about publishing houses & the like, and I gave her what information I could about the advantage of publishing with a house as opposed to independently. I do not and did not harbor any personal animosity toward Richard Novic, but I have learned my lesson: I will not let someone read a review I’ve written before submitting it for publication again.
(4) Dallas Denny was not responsible for the inclusion of Alice Novic’s “note†about my review, having resigned her post as editor between the time she submitted the two reviews and the actual publication of TT #110. She has said she found the publication of such a rebuttal in TT an embarrassment both to Richard Novic and to TT.
(5) Generally speaking, authors do not rebut their reviews. It’s considered bad form. They may occasionally factually correct a reviewer, if anything.
(6) The announcement in the same issue of TT that Richard Novic is to be one of TT’s regular columnists makes the publication of that note even more unprofessional and smacks of favoritism.
Finally, I want to state that I stand by my review. The idea that my “personal feelings†overwhelmed my professional considerations is laughable; after all, half of what I do professionally is advocate for partners! More than anything, however, I wanted people – crossdressers especially – to understand how rare and highly individual Dr. Novic’s situation is, so that they would not make the tragic mistake of expecting their own wives to accept their having boyfriends on the side. As it is, so many wives are already stretched to the limit in terms of accepting and honoring their husbands’ crossdressing. I will also reiterate that I found Richard Novic’s honesty about his own bisexualism and his journey toward self-acceptance laudable and useful.
If people would like to read more reviews of the book – including some of my more personal feelings about it – do check the thread on our message boards where some of our regular posters chimed in as to their own feelings about the book, too.
I’m sorry, Helen. That’s what you get for trying to be nice to someone. You should, obviously, just have submitted your original review without giving Novic an advance look at it.
I know how annoying this must be, but it reflects badly only on Novic himself and the publication. What he did was embarrassingly amateurish, and demonstrates that he either has a well-developed sense of privilege and entitlement, or, at least, is remarkably naïve in believing that just because he’s trans and wrote a book, any review in a trans or trans-friendly publication is somehow supposed to be a complete puff piece. How absurd.
Donna
I’ve never published my review of Novic’s book. I was told that there was a second edition that wpuld help dispel my concerns that Novic’s wife was misled and abused, and that for all the book’s honesty Novic is a scoundrel and a cad. Personal feelings indeed. This sort of thing makes me want to get the second edition and check it out to see.
Astonishing. Truly. As a professional in academia, I see everyday the value of reviews–especially the ethics of an honest review. Helen, you did NOT deserve such mistreatment. You were invited to review. This sort of “spin” reminds me of the Bush administration: disagree and you will be censured.
As a CD fairly new to the journey, I nervously looked over Amazon’s offerings. Novic’s text was one of the first one’s I’d ordered–after Helen’s first book. And, after a month, I’m still trying to read it. Mostly, it’s sitting by my bed. Why? Because it reads like a lot of exclamation points.
Hey, that’s fine. I take Novic’s text for what it is: exciting stuff from one person’s life. It is quite “a-gush” with, well, excitement and more excitement and more. I found that not only could I put it down I wanted to put it down.
As I read your review, Helen, your words really helped to capture some of the emotions I was feeling while reading Alice in Genderland, but I couldn’t find the words–you did!
Helen, your review of the book was RIGHT-ON!
P.S.
Guess what? I’m still reading My Husband, Betty. Why? I have to put it down for awhile. But, here’s the difference:
1) Novic’s book starts to sound too much like fiction. Great. It’s a joy-ride. It’s exciting. What a fantasy, right? And, some people are ready for it!
2) Helen’s book makes me THINK, mull it over, turn it over in my mind: on every single page in Helen’s book, I have highlighted sentences. As Wordsworth wrote about life’s experience, so to, Helen, your writing affects me with “thoughts too deep for words.” I literally have to stop and contemplate and feel the ideas. It’s an extraordinary experience for which I’m very grateful.
I didn’t mean to make this a brief review of both books, but both are literally on my night stand. So, it was amazing to me to see this issue come up.
As for the political meanderings and machinations of the review and rebuttal, it reeks of narcissism and money-changing-hands for the sake of selling subscriptions. Alas, but this too shall pass. Such maneuverings are usually quite ephemeral anyway.
Helen, you wrote one heckuva review. Excellent, kiddo! (oops, guess I just told everyone I’m older!)
I didn’t purchase “Alice in Genderland” based on some negative feedback I recieved from others (not Helen). Now I have to question whether or not I should subscribe once again to Tapestry after letting my subscription drop several years ago. One thing I demand from any kind of media is professionalism and integrity, and it looks like IFGE might be lacking in that department.
Glad to hear tha dallas had no hand in an unprofessional situation, too bad for TT, the new editor seems to be less than knowlegable about good journalism.
Lizzy
I would love to read an honest appraisal/discussion of there relationship from Novic’s wife.
I have to say, having read your review and having read Alice, and also being a CD who is working out the issue with my wife (who is super incredibly understanding), I can’t see what Novic is complaining about. It’s a well-written and thoughtful review. I guess it’s useful to have books that focus on the dresser’s point of view exclusively, but I think of my dressing as “ours” (mine and my wifes); her point of view is something that is always on my mind. I frankly didn’t see that sensitivity in Novic’s book at all.
I saw this at CDI last week, where we get several copies of each issue. It seemed very weird, the rebuttal, the second review. I think a letter to the editor is in order.
This discussion is split between here and the MHB Forum. I’ve posted a long reply to what was said both there and here over there: (http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/......php?t=914)
Basically, I object to the piling on on Novic and especially Tapestry. Helen wrote a not completely negative but completely nasty review, and Tapestry published a much shorter nasty reply from Novic. And throwing “professionalism” around so selectively isn’t such a hot idea, we could all find ourselves on a pretty slippery slope.
Explain to me what was “nasty” about my review. It was certainly critical, but I don’t think it was “mean” (which is what I think you mean by “nasty.”)
It seemed gleefully antagonistic. If not deliberately mean, I could easily see how someone whose published memoir was likened to a Fictionmania story, told his experiences were not worth reading because similar ones are common on the web, jokingly and innacurately mocked for looking into childhood origins of his crossdressing, and told his life choices are mostly bad, could find all that hurtful. I don’t want to go on here, since I’ve already written about this on the MHB forum.
By the way, I had no idea you were away. Also, the final sentence in my forum post wasn’t meant to be snide. It was a clumsy Rodney King-type of appeal for the bashing to stop all around.
Jean, Betty asked over in the thread about what you saw as “nasty” exactly – not just the general ideas, but what it was about what I wrote exactly that counts even as “gleefully antagonistic.” She’s looking for quotes, because neither of us see it. She thinks this is an opinion and really isn’t convinced.
That is, I think the review you read is different from the one I wrote.
I see your list, but I don’t see that your list is really a summation of my review. Honestly, I think your perception is off. Unless what you mean is that my tone is condescending? We’re having a language problem here, maybe.
But I’ll also reiterate a little of what Jenny said over in the thread: if you’re going to write a memoir, you better be ready for people to criticize your choices. The issue, once again, is really just that her feelings were hurt. I get that part of it. What I don’t understand is why, or why she thinks that gave her the right to call me unprofessional (which, I will remind you, she accused me of, not the other way around.)
Betty would appreciate a specific response, though.